cgraves67:Just remember, we need these guys to get us to the ISS and back for at least another year.

We can only hope that science and politics won't interfere with one another.

I mean, really... The scientists involved in that project have no political agenda. What they are doing is for the benefit of all humankind. I'm sure they would be the first to pray for a day when it is a privately funded initiative, and politics wouldn't come into play at all.

durbnpoisn:cgraves67: Just remember, we need these guys to get us to the ISS and back for at least another year.

We can only hope that science and politics won't interfere with one another.

I mean, really... The scientists involved in that project have no political agenda. What they are doing is for the benefit of all humankind. I'm sure they would be the first to pray for a day when it is a privately funded initiative, and politics wouldn't come into play at all.

I remember someone pointing out that while the economics departments at universities taught diametrically opposed theories, the scientists were always in agreement. At least after they got rid if that silly Lysenkoism.

Yea, outrage. Because we would never sell arms to Russia, or anyone without a darn good reason... especially if there are two sides in a conflict and both need arms. We would never do anything like that.

"French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius raised the possibility on Monday of scrapping the deal depending on further sanctions against Moscow over its seizure of Ukraine's Crimea region, but later said he was only considering delaying it."

"France's foreign ministry also backed down on comments made earlier by Fabius saying Russia had been suspended from the G8."We are suspending our work and our participation in the G8 as has already been announced," spokesman Romain Nadal told reporters, referring to the scheduled G8 Summit in Sochi in June. "That's what the minister meant.""

payattention:Yea, outrage. Because we would never sell arms to Russia, or anyone without a darn good reason... especially if there are two sides in a conflict and both need arms. We would never do anything like that.

That is one of the finest small arms that have been made. The scope looks 'merican though. Have you shot one? I have my poor mans Rem 700 AICS .308 version or my TRG-42 .338 because I couldn't spend the money on a $8,000 rifle.

I always 'love it' when it turns out that our allies have been selling our potential enemies weapons to possibly use against us.

But, then again, I wonder how many military toys we've sold to potential enemies of our allies also. When it comes to big business, lines are not clearly drawn. During WW2, there were a couple of US companies who were secretly selling supplies to the enemy. After all, it was 'just business'.

Now, consider all of the heavy duty military trucks and vehicles along with other non-weapon supplies we're leaving behind in Iraq. Too expensive to ship them all home -- so we'll abandon them. Either that or the car makers don't want cheap, surplus, strongly built military vehicles available to the general public.

After WW2, you could buy a jeep for $50 and one of those huge, iconic military trucks for maybe $100. I bought bayonets for $5.00 and a 9mm mauser for $30. Army helmets were about $2.00.

Well, based on France's track record with selling arms they'll wait until they think nobody's looking and sell them anyway.

What's interesting is that Russia couldn't build those carriers themselves.

Hard to say that in this globalized economy. You could say "What's interesting is that the USA couldn't build their own computers." or "What's interesting is that France couldn't create their own clothes." or "What's interesting is that Australia couldn't grow its own coffee and tea." when the real answer for most of those is "They can do it cheaper somewhere else."

Maybe Russia chose to build them in France because it was cheaper for them. Or could be that they built them in France because the person in charge of getting them built has a financial interest in the French company doing the building, so he gets a personal kickback from the deal by way of his stock value rising.

And yes, maybe there wasn't enough Russian skill in that particular profession to build new ships - which I would hope is the case, for the sake of Europe. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see if other EU nations decide not to build arms for Russia anymore and let the Russians do it themselves.

/And yes, I managed to type that last sentence with a straight face. I'm rather proud of myself for that.

Techhell:Hard to say that in this globalized economy. You could say "What's interesting is that the USA couldn't build their own computers." or "What's interesting is that France couldn't create their own clothes." or "What's interesting is that Australia couldn't grow its own coffee and tea." when the real answer for most of those is "They can do it cheaper somewhere else."

When it comes to defense, do you really think a strong country would allow important, expensive things like aircraft carriers to be built by foreigners? They can go change their mind and mess up your arsenal, just like France is about to do to Russia.